I think a good way to introduce Heidegger is through the metaphysical reversal he undertakes. Rather than knowledge or meaning being an object "out there" to be grasped ex post facto by a rational subject "in here," the "subject" (Dasein) always already "possesses" meaning to the extent that prior to any rational thought or contemplation of things, things must appear in the first place. So to say that the world is meaningless is contradictory because the world IS meaning. Now you could still say that there is no ULTIMATE meaning, but the mere fact that things manifest themselves at all indicates that there is meaning.
This discourse from Peterson is remarkably coherent and well developed over a good span of time - not the case in most of his extended lectures. This is not to say that his ideas here are properly extrapolated and vigorously argued - but he does maintain a line of inquiry that is logically reasonable.
I like how you describe phenomenology as almost a particular strand of "Pragmatism". As William James said, a belief or choice should be adopted based on its fruits, not its roots. In other words, choose the beliefs and lens which bring the most meaning to your life and world. I have loved your videos and you work, being myself a JD and MA in Philosophy. I wish I had access to a teacher like you in undergrad, or anytime :) Keep up "the great work"!
Dear professor Peterson, Is it wise for an easily impressionable college student to read books that are radically different from his original opinion? Is it better to wait until one first cultivates his or her own cohesive thought (i.e. religion or politics) then read books that are actively trying to destroy one's presuppositions? Or is fear (of becoming a monster) something I need to face and conquer like the knight who slays the dragon? Is being content with oneself a form hubris or should I wait until I feel I'm able to confront the beast? Thank you Professor Peterson for allowing us to watch your invaluable lectures. It has been such a joy to hear your message.
+fajitaboys I've had plenty of experiments and I have an opinion for the question I stated above. My life has been a tornado of fluctuating ideas from giants all around world; both sides on each of the major questions I've came up with. But Nietzsche or Jung are different breeds, they aren't your typical high school readings. I was asking Professor Peterson a serious existential question on what and how I should act when I find myself a person who is easily impressionable. You mentioned have a little more faith in yourself. Whether or not I accept Professor Peterson's kind advice is up to me. You are mistaken if you think so little of me.
Davin Lee The basic idéa of philosophy is that it is just that: idéas. Not everything is absolute truth or is litteraly the truth(some are symbolic or allegories). Even so, You should listen to his lectures on existentialism. Reality is not only what others tell you or even your own ideology or your interpretation of your feelings and experiences but: all and none of the previously mentioned. The more idéas that you read about the better can you decide and understand how you yourself interperet and behave in your and others reality. Although you should maby do or not inforce your own and as many as possible idéas before a person is of adult age, depending on how the parents of a child whants to raise their children. In my opinion information is almost always positive, especially idéas not alligning wih your own, but it is also important to be critical of all idéas and create your own.
"He who has nothing to die for has nothing to live for; he does not know what life is." --A.W. Tozer There are a great many paradoxes in life, but one of the most profound and significant is the fact that a person's reason for living is often also their reason for dying. Although life and death seem diametrically opposed, you can't justify the one without justifying the other, and people are often killed by the very thing that made their life seem worth living.
Bah ... you try explaining Heidegger to a bunch of psychology students who probably couldn't care less of about the matter beyond its applicability in their own discipline. Heidegger is a hard theorist to explain in 18 minutes ... this wasn't half-bad (which also means it wasn't half-good). If there's one major problem with this explanation (beside the explication of Dasein's structures) it's that he does a reaaaaaallllly shoddy job of addressing ek-sistenz (i.e. the clearing of Being). In short, this rudimentary lecture would probably do well in inspiring kids to try and read Heidegger, something I think we'll both agree is not a task for the feint of spirit (see what I did there?).
It only takes a privileged degree and ten years, some hardcore process to understand, they want it back you aren't allowed to keep it or look at it again so they gave me this boring one heidegger Influenced various translations that still don't make true sense of it I made some interesting comments that have a few hints but it becomes a phenomology of a philosophy within the mind itself on reality thats extremely difficult to actually talk about due to alterity like downloading something into your brain... I call them nihalists and they'll reverse any meaning into nonsense there's nothing you can do about it
This is so brilliant - Peterson is at his best when he is mixing philosophy with psychology. I reckon he could write a brilliant book on this kind of theme - his interpretation of the great philosophers and their implications in psychology.
I would most definitely read it. I think Peterson even has original contributions to make to this line of discourse, and (considering the propensity to nihilism today) it might be his most important work.
10:46 “Large scale belief systems are not very fast…predicated on MUTUAL AGREEMENT…social interactions within…useful and JUST…splinter movements.” This reminded me of regular broadcast TV and cable TV. It’s been trending towards, “a la carte.” Moving away from a focused, cultural gathering, around a “set” of values or common discussion. I don’t believe it EVER will or SHOULD ever will…because if there is NOTHING a society can gather around, nothing a culture can relate to with one another… You will have tribal, segregated and unfamiliar CHAOS…at a NATIONWIDE MACRO LEVEL. JUST a thought. 😌 SCARY, if there is NO BASELINE substance to ASSIMILATE to.
damn i always listen to these lectures when i gotta do some boring stuff like cooking and its the best! and at the end of the day lying in my bed and thinking about the stuff and how it fits to my life!! thx gospodin Peterson
How is this valuable? It is total gibberish. This is supposed to be a lecture on Phenomenology? This is an outstanding example of a failed and rambling lecture.
The type of his thinking is very confusing, conclusive . In other words he doesn’t let the thinking do it’s job , always he fills them with his subjective biases world view
It was mentioned, that radical reconfiguration of society is almost always a catastrophe, however it may be the only option for people placed at the bottom of hierarchy, especially if establishment is set to exploit. It may be the only way to move forward and sometimes it works. For instance, French revolution brought human rights, overthrow absolute monarchy and allowed to establish republics. It may be the case, that revolution is inevitable unless the system gradually delegates power and allows climbing hierarchy.
French revolution ended in a catastrophe, it took them a century and a half to get on the right track. The Americans had a much better run of it. Yeah slavery's bad, but I'd take that over large scale bloodshed.
@@muffinman2946 Id say the French got back on track with Napoleon. The american revolution went well, the roman "revolution" (when they killed their kings) went well also
In Qubec, "when Catholicism fell apart, people, who still needed structured belief systems just turned to nationalism as a structured alternative, and that's part of what accounted for the regidity and utopianism of the Quebec movement towards independence". Any Scots watching? (I say this as a Yes voter)
"Freud noticed (this is in the aftermath of Nietzsche) that you're not the master of your own psyche. There's many sub 'you's inside of you and they don't all want the same thing. So the idea that you can generate your own meaning is an insufficiently developed idea, because theres a lot of meaning making generators residing within you. And not only do they not all point in the same direction (which is a huge problem) but they don't even necessarily lay themselves out in some integrated fashion across time. And they dont necessarily operate together in way thats going to enable you to find your place with other people and in society. So, you know; "make your own meaning". Well; which part of you, you know? You're not a unified thing."
Dasein, yes, means literally “being there.” But refers to the human being. It does not mean existence. Heidegger uses the word Existenz for existence in Sein und Zeit.
I found Professor Peterson as he was a guest on Joe Roman’s podcast. Who knew the cohost of the imbecilic manshow could be the gateway to such great knowledge.
20:21 A consequence of our neglect of moral principle, neglect of the idea of Truth as a Primary Value, is that our economic system rewards harmful behavior. We don't insist that the market operate honestly. We don't demand that industries account for externalities. (There's no generall fee charged proportional to pollution emitted, resources depleted or habitat destroyed.) This means that harmful practices bring profit. IF we charged appropriate fees, then we'd be able to take random polls and find that environmental impacts of various kinds are being held within limits that most people think are acceptable. We can make the policy fair by sharing fee proceeds (a measure of the value of natural resources--a gift from God or the product of natural processes) to all people.
I suspect Heidegger was trying to teach fellow dons how to communicate with each other. Most folk, including JP, don't need it. The Sheldrakes and their fellow thinkers will give viewers better leads.
You cannot psychologize Heidegger. He warns throughout his book that you can't do this, he openly attacked all such readings. You can absolutely not confound the ontological and the ontic. Once again, this is intro class material. He hasn't read this book.
@@keithhunt5328 True; and Peterson is a loud apologist of Hitler's "genius" and a horrible -comically overconfident- reader of philosophers. If we are to remain on topic. But OK.
What if family members are dead? What if family members cannot agree on a consensus reality? Nietzsche stated "I have done that," says my memory. "I cannot have done that" -- says my pride, and remains adamant. At last -- memory yields.” Would it not be dangerous to integrate a lie -- in the name of making peace with yourself. Is peace merely an absence of conflict? Or does it have to include engagement? I mean it would be optimal but sometimes some things are just not possible. Is someone doomed not to be whole -- because of someone else's inability to accept the truth?
PTSD doesnt only come from observing oneself commit atrocities, it also can come about from witnessing something that makes you realize "how damn bloody arbitrary the universe is" as Dr. Peterson might say.
@elvisfifo Unfortunately it is the truth of our existence. Thank God for everyday that you open your eyes. Although this is a two year old comment, I too learned from the Army that even stateside everything can end in the snap of your fingers.
Dr. Peterson I don't know how to reach you. I have tried different ways and will keep looking for it. Please teach me how to become more focused on my jobs. I am not industrious at all but I am very talented.
Speaking of dreams I'm going to randomly describe one from my early teens that has just stuck with me. (Feel free to interpret this if you want) Now before we start let me explain my dream neighborhoods. Whenever I am outside in a dream and can see the surrounding structures it's always a blur of houses or buildings I have seen or been too. I understand that, the dream is filling in the blanks with familiar buildings. The buildings should be along this sidewalk otherwise the world is broken, let's just check the files on buildings and copy/paste. Originally it was houses and the like but more recently businesses and video game/media buildings, so things from movies and such. Basically any place I actually document as special I could dream of in this neighborhood. Well in this dream it was a collection of houses, my mothers work, and my church (Which is across the street from my mothers business) This neighborhood actual consisted mostly actual houses from the block around my mothers business, just one or two were different. I don't remember half the dream, only the part that terrified me and the parts before that. For some reason a tiger was sleeping on a swing in front of one of the houses that actually exists next to my mothers work. I did everything I could to sneak past that big bengal tiger. I reached a house that didn't belong there and tried to enter thinking it the house of my mothers current secretary. Surely she would help me. Problem is the concrete porch was missing up close to the door and I fell making a loud noise and waking the tiger. I turned and ran a distance before it caught me, tackled me, and bit into my stomach. The whole thing woke me up screaming because my blanket bunched around my stomach making it feel like something was actually biting down on my stomach. I threw my blanket off and went running. This dream disturbs me to this day and I don't know why.
Refer Blake's 'tiger, tiger, burning bright' Tiger could be a symbol of something that robs you of your inner power, but that you don't confront. Confront it in your waking, conscious moments. This 'terror striking tiger' is robbing you, but you hv repressed the fact of it. Hence it could be appearing in your dreams.
The tiger is the God Squad which is robbing you of your ability to think for yourself. For example, in the book of Exodus they become the property of Jehovah. You need to be more free spirited instead of clinging on to stale hope that some son who never actually existed is going to "come back again" and "save you." The only mystery of religion is why people still believe in it.
@@misssarahashplant31 Lol it was a spooky dream. I don't follow the Christian gods anymore. I also don't think all this cringy fedora tier presumptuous pseudo intellectual bullshit is accurate. Three years ago I was quite overcome with anxiety. These dreams were nothing more than my anxiety manifest. I was finally at the university stage of my education. I was hit very suddenly with the realization that I had no safety net. I had no help. The rest of my life was up to me. In the time between then and now I've gained control. The mind and body have a way of adapting to their situation in three years. But at the time I was incredibly anxious about life and old dream sequences were plaguing me at night. It had nothing to do with whatever Psyche 1 Jordan B Peterson tier bullshit you hide under your fedora to make you think you're smarter than everyone around you.
@@jinglesbejankin7322 I find what Dr. Peterson talks about very interesting. I don't see how he is pseudointellectual but anyway, you see him through your own lens.
This teacher says that Dasein is the "totality of experiencing" in which everyone is "encapsulated". This statement makes no sense to me. Heideggers term Dasein simply refers to humans, in what makes humans human, which is that they relate to their being. "Dasein versteht sich in irgendeiner Weise in seinem Sein" - Dasein comprehends itself in some manner in its being and makes it amenable in the sense of "I am". On top of that reasoning may or may not appear (animal rationale / zoon logon echon). That is a very central element in his philosophy and it doesn't seem adequately grasped in this strange lecture that claims to be about phenomenology while consisting of one hour of anecdotal insights and twenty minutes of phenomenology. And some of his statements are downright outrageous. Marx certainly never argued that the people who gained a status of elite in a system created the system. That's paradoxical. And the proposition of this teacher that music business being dominated by few musicians and one percent of the world population owning more than half of the worlds wealth would be basically the same and sort of an inevitable natural development makes me utterly speechless. BTW the "film footage" of Nietzsche is an animated collage of photographies by Hans Olde.
"And the proposition of this teacher that music business being dominated by few musicians and one percent of the world population owning more than half of the worlds wealth would be basically the same and sort of an inevitable natural development makes me utterly speechless. " It's called the Pareto distribution. It's not something you can make up.
I wish Dr Peterson would please re-read "The Age of the World Picture", for one. Heidegger was trying to overcome the idea that the human being was a mere collection of sensations and impressions (as subiectum) and was a being-in-the-world.
+Jordan B Peterson Dimorphism is damn near incomprehensible and just tears away my sense of solid ground. Those two modes, totalitarian and nihilist, are differentiated and categorized by observing a persons behavior, based on the idea that behavior implies motive, yet if you were to base your categorization on the idea that motive implies behavior, the categories of what constitutes nihilism and what constitutes the other thing switches. Hitler was a totalitarian because he did x y z. Hitler was a nihilist because he wanted x y z. So he was both, depending on your vantage point?
The analysis of how power relations form is pretty bad and he takes what Marx said out of context, along with implying that Marx explained capitalism as a moral system of entitlement, which he didn't. I would suggest going through Marx's earlier writings (from his critique of Hegel's theory of the state to the German Ideology).
These lectures are very interesting and informative. Thanks for posting them for free! I do have one issue, however. I don't agree with the idea that if people are left to define there own moral codes and how to live in the world, or civilization, that they will have to spend an inordinate amount of time doing so. I think you contradict yourself a little here. If evolutionary processes are the foundation of the shared moral substrate, and these commonalities are what led to archetypes, and archetypal stories, then those defining their own moral code, subjectively let's say, without the guidance of a religious doctrine, would, looking within, still find the same values. Because, as you say, they are encoded genetically. Furthermore, you seem to support my assertion with references to "Crime and Punishment" as well as the effects of war on soldiers. It is precisely because the moral code is embedded in our genetic makeup and, subsequently, or perhaps simultaneously, results in the social order, that people end up damaged by in the ways you describe. It seems to me as well, that the archetypal stories don't simply exist in religious texts, and I don't believe you have said that either. You frequently refer to Harry Potter, as well as many other modern stories portraying the heroic archetype. It is, to me, evident that religion is not in fact necessary for these stories to remain ever present in the collective conscience and, therefore, relevant. They are not dependent on a religious or spiritual belief because they are part of the genetic structure. The religious texts are the articulation of the a priori moral substrate. They are, perhaps, only more potent due to their status, however unreasonably founded, as literally divinely inspired. Rejecting religion is perilous when the stories are rejected as well, but, in my opinion, would be beneficial for the sake of truth and reason. It seems entirely possible to have a secular, non-religious society, without confusing people or leaving them lost in the wilderness, so to speak, by explaining our relationship to morality as an articulation of social constraints and expectations as determined and derived by evolutionary processes. I believe this, largely in part, because that is exactly what myself, and many listeners are gleaning from your lectures...and it isn't so terribly difficult. In any case. You're a busy man and I don't expect a reply, but wanted to write all this nevertheless.
40:47 you’re not the master of your psyche? There’s many sub yous inside you and they don’t all necessarily point in the same direction 45:38 in any domain there’s always a minority that has more than the 50% 52:00 you don’t want too negative not too positive in a relationship 1:03:06 what’s nihilism is doing is twisting certain elements of
Jordan P. I´m still unsure of what you exactly define by meaning. If we constantly and naturally give meaning to all we live, then what do you understand by something being meaningless?
I feel that letting Nietzsche 'off the hook', so to speak, for parts of his philosophy that are easily applicable to totalitarian culture is a cherry-picking view of his commentary. You discuss his idea of value-creating, but we shouldn't forget that he said quite clearly that the value-creating was a function of very rare "higher men". He also said that lesser men [which comprise the vast majority of us] didn't just NEED to be dominated by man with the strength and will to dominate, but that they WANTED to be. With that axiom in place, it isn't stretch at all for the rationalization and application of the dark deeds that came not long after. I think a more effective argument against his idea of value-creating [if you agree that such a thing is possible in the first place] is that most people aren't able or willing to do it - a view that is congruent with his actual work and a more practical real-world counterpoint. I think that - even if one can't create truly new values - that Nietzsche's 'higher men' are capable of adopting a set of values that sometimes will discard parts of the social contract. This can be valuable and positive for an actualized person, but can also be an effective tool and downright dangerous in the hands of extremists. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Nietzsche is to blame for the rise of totalitarian culture, but pretending that his message was merely warped, or misinterpreted by the 20th century idealouges isn't a fair analysis of the work. He had a lot dangerous ideas; he said so himself.
@@konberner170 Aspects of this critique appear fundamental. I think interpretation of the work and idea of the overman may always be predicated on the degree of inflationary will to power experienced as a compensatory need and force by the reader (as ideology is understood as a response to trauma/a lack of internal balance in one's sense of self conducive to the life affirming and experience of enduring love). There should not to a domination by force evocation, ultimately, but inspiration of others via character development (an exemplary archetype) and acceptance of the limitations of the power game in context of meaning and outcomes (this likely requires metacognitive capacity). The problem is that the relational game is so often imbued with a sense of lack and need for re-empowerment/influence amongst a certain array of personalities (the narcissist in particular) in order to achieve (an outward orientation). Of course, interpretations are limited by one's psychointegrative progress - a process that so many struggle to formulate within their concept of identity and meaning. Many works, biblical and otherwise, can be applied towards the destructive enterprises as utilized by the unconscious shadow complex and manifested socially through the orientation of the rigid limbic functions that have a primary need towards control. An ethically defined concept of the overman as conscious and strong with regard to the development of self-restraint and adherence to life-affirming principles and defining human nature by its potential for compassion may be required to proliferate with more emphasis considering the above.
Argh! You just crushed my ubermenchian dreams! But is your work not it's own revaluation of values? You have spent your life (so far) doing so, but perhaps creation of new values and convincing others to hold them to be sacred is a project that can progressed toward, passed down and eventually completed and protected? This of course would include of a method of adapting the value system to changes in the environment. I don't see what other choice we have.
25:00 So we shouldn’t do away with evil so long as we’re satiated and numb? Don’t rock the boat? The separatists aren’t saying “we just FEEL it would be better”. They have concrete reasons why it would be better, and those are well-founded in the history of economics and culture prior to State intervention AND the evils of the current system. Canada has only gotten worse since this video was recorded, too. That’s one of the few times I’ve heard JBP actually make a straw man argument to ‘shut down’ someone he disagreed with. But he still believes in politics so...well using his logic I could say it’s not worth having a discussion with someone like that (even though I think it IS worth it). Not that separatists are anarchists, but if you think an anarchist is anything close to a utopian I suggest questioning the utopian belief that some benevolent government that can point a gun at whomever they choose will magically restore order, rather than allowing people to voluntarily choose who they want to interact with. Anarchy is not Utopianism. Belief in politics is, and JBP sounded like far more of a utopian here than that ‘separatist’ he was talking to.
That's not what Sartre meant by "Hell is other people"! That's also not what Marx meant by "religion is the opiate of the masses"! Marx didn't write that religion "laid out so that a small elite could control the population." This guy is a professor at one of the most respected universities in the world. Wow. It's kind of amazing that a professor can get away with cherry picking quotes, giving them the interpretation that accords with his ideology. Where is the rigor?
I agree. I think he's a great teacher BUT he is really biased against anything he considers Marxist. It seems he conflates the tragedy that was the Soviet Union with Marx's thought. I don't get the impression he has seriously studied Marx. Too bad. It really gets annoying sometimes. I don't think there exists a better critic of capitalism than Marx's.
That is what Marx meant. And it's not just the soviet union, Peterson talked about China as well. Marx wasn't just a critic of capitalism he believed in an overthrow of it by throwing off 'oppressors'. Marx was very short sighted, as intelligent as he was, to not realize that it wasn't just the aristocrats that were being overthrown. And as a matter of fact could not account for a rising new class which grew due to the retention of capital. Nevertheless, Marxist theory, which is rooted in the revolution of anyone ho has less than one who has more, is a deeply frightening thought. Deconstructed Marxist theory is horrifying not empowering.
If you think there is something in Marx's critique of capitalism that leads to the labour camps in the Soviet Union then, like Peterson, you clearly haven't studied Marx's work, and you're revealing that you don't know what you're talking about.
Ok Rob, I'm familiar with your view of the world and I understand why you think I am in favor of gulags and dictatorships. But you should know that just because I'm not in favor of capitalism as a mode of life, does not in any way lead me to being a fan of Soviet-style dictatorship. In fact, it's the opposite. I am opposed to any form of human domination that is unjustified. I have read a ton of Marx's writings, with a handful of very critical and intelligent people, and I can tell you that there is no better critique of capitalism as a mode of production. That's my conclusion. At first I wanted to ask you how Marx's critique of capitalism leads to a dictatorship of the proletariat. I wanted to say that I know you're not going to be able to do so because there is no necessary connection at all. But I don't want to be rude anymore. All I can say is that if you want to learn to think for yourself, find someone to guide you through Marx's Capital Volume I (to start, David Harvey has a whole course on it on youtube). There are many great thinkers in the 20th century who held on to Marx's critique of capitalism while simultaneously ridiculing what was happening in the Soviet Union and other dictatorships that claimed to be for the people. The same happens under capitalism. Both capitalism and bureaucratic communism are forms of life that are characterized by domination in the sphere where we produce our daily lives. Some people reap the benefits while others do all the work. I'm simply in favor of imagining a much more radically democratic way in which we can live, with real education that's critical of dogma. It doesn't mean we do away with dogma, it means we question it.
@@misssarahashplant31 I turned myself towards anthropology, then towards Daniel Quinn's Ishmael which was a revelation to me like no other. Yet the daily existential grind forces you to find workable answers within this civilization, then one day out of no where I watched a video about The Unabomber.
Wow, it gets worse. He explains Heidegger (whom he says is avoiding the "subject-object game") using the language of Western metaphysics! In other words, he explains Heidegger falsely. He's so confused. I'm sure his students must be, too. This is unbelievable to me. How can this guy be teaching such falsities to undergraduates!
The first philosophy professor who taught me Heidegger, taught it well using Heidegger's own language, comparing it along the way to the language of Western metaphysics. It made sense. At least in this lecture, this guy did a poor job of explaining what Heidegger was on about.
Your criticism equates falsity of conclusion with subjective disapproval of means to arrive at a correct conclusion. That notwithstanding your criticism is - in this case - factually inaccurate. seop.illc.uva.nl/entries/heidegger/#BeiTim It also wouldn't hurt if you dialed down the bravado, it makes your comments an unnecessarily exhausting read.
I must admit I find people like you very irritating. I couldn't care less if you want to pretend like you read Heidegger and know whether or not he was metaphysical in his early works. Read the stuff I referenced, or don't. Either way, I shan't indulge your attempt at saving face any further, so fare thee well.
This is a real refreshing change of pace from your run of the mill internet duel. "Your thoughts are jumbled and grammatically incorrect!" "I shan't indulge your attempt at saving face any further!" If someone could slap the other with a glove, that'd be great.
This guy, an academic, has a 1950s popular understanding of Marx: Base is the cause of superstructure. But Marx had a much more complicated "dialectical" understanding of the relationship between ideas and practices. Read and think before you spew your ideas, professor!
But he's not analyzing Marx in this video. Marx was no dummy and no one as far as I can see has ever claimed that. The issue is that MARXISM has caused alot more harm than good in this world. Watch more of his lectures, he's terrific.
These lectures have reignited my desire to learn as an adult. I wish everyone would watch these at least once.
They had the same effect on me!
changed my life.
I know 😊
I’m a stay at home mom who just bought two Heidegger books. Can’t wait
@@gracefullyyours6508: Which ones?
Right I love Jordan Peterson's lectures
53:10 - Where the talk on Heidegger and Phenomenology starts.
Really??
@@marto123456able There's a solid intro
Good timestamp for people who are looking for that specifically
thank yuo so myucj
@@koroglurustem1722 That's what love will do.
So thankful JP posted these lectures.
I think a good way to introduce Heidegger is through the metaphysical reversal he undertakes. Rather than knowledge or meaning being an object "out there" to be grasped ex post facto by a rational subject "in here," the "subject" (Dasein) always already "possesses" meaning to the extent that prior to any rational thought or contemplation of things, things must appear in the first place. So to say that the world is meaningless is contradictory because the world IS meaning. Now you could still say that there is no ULTIMATE meaning, but the mere fact that things manifest themselves at all indicates that there is meaning.
George Berkeley would beg to differ.
How does that relate to Kant's ding an sich?
Then go record lectures.
Love listening to this Prof. while im working. Thanks for posting!
I enjoyed talking to the God Squad but now I must move on and find a new crowd to talk to. Thank you for your interesting lectures Dr. Peterson.
This discourse from Peterson is remarkably coherent and well developed over a good span of time - not the case in most of his extended lectures. This is not to say that his ideas here are properly extrapolated and vigorously argued - but he does maintain a line of inquiry that is logically reasonable.
You really do sound unutterably pious.
More valuable than words can describe.
I like how you describe phenomenology as almost a particular strand of "Pragmatism". As William James said, a belief or choice should be adopted based on its fruits, not its roots. In other words, choose the beliefs and lens which bring the most meaning to your life and world.
I have loved your videos and you work, being myself a JD and MA in Philosophy. I wish I had access to a teacher like you in undergrad, or anytime :) Keep up "the great work"!
I think Pragmatism is more a strand of Phenomenology, than the other way around.
Phenomenology: glad to have learned this term since it’s been such a big benefit in my life, in large part thanks to Peterson’s 12 rules.
53:56 Dasein is not the totality of your experience or the experience of the natural world etc. It is the being whose being is an issue for it.
yes, thanks
Dear professor Peterson,
Is it wise for an easily impressionable college student to read books that are radically different from his original opinion? Is it better to wait until one first cultivates his or her own cohesive thought (i.e. religion or politics) then read books that are actively trying to destroy one's presuppositions? Or is fear (of becoming a monster) something I need to face and conquer like the knight who slays the dragon? Is being content with oneself a form hubris or should I wait until I feel I'm able to confront the beast?
Thank you Professor Peterson for allowing us to watch your invaluable lectures. It has been such a joy to hear your message.
+fajitaboys I've had plenty of experiments and I have an opinion for the question I stated above. My life has been a tornado of fluctuating ideas from giants all around world; both sides on each of the major questions I've came up with. But Nietzsche or Jung are different breeds, they aren't your typical high school readings. I was asking Professor Peterson a serious existential question on what and how I should act when I find myself a person who is easily impressionable.
You mentioned have a little more faith in yourself. Whether or not I accept Professor Peterson's kind advice is up to me. You are mistaken if you think so little of me.
Davin Lee check out, if you haven't, the C. Jasper's "Introduction to philosophy" the part: "About the reading of philosophical books".
Davin Lee The basic idéa of philosophy is that it is just that: idéas. Not everything is absolute truth or is litteraly the truth(some are symbolic or allegories). Even so, You should listen to his lectures on existentialism. Reality is not only what others tell you or even your own ideology or your interpretation of your feelings and experiences but: all and none of the previously mentioned.
The more idéas that you read about the better can you decide and understand how you yourself interperet and behave in your and others reality. Although you should maby do or not inforce your own and as many as possible idéas before a person is of adult age, depending on how the parents of a child whants to raise their children.
In my opinion information is almost always positive, especially idéas not alligning wih your own, but it is also important to be critical of all idéas and create your own.
Davin Lee
this course should be called
"observing the beard growth on a sapian while he talks about important stuff"
"He who has nothing to die for has nothing to live for; he does not know what life is."
--A.W. Tozer
There are a great many paradoxes in life, but one of the most profound and significant is the fact that a person's reason for living is often also their reason for dying. Although life and death seem diametrically opposed, you can't justify the one without justifying the other, and people are often killed by the very thing that made their life seem worth living.
Professor Peterson does not understand Heidegger -- at all. Not phenomenology, not Dasein.
Bah ... you try explaining Heidegger to a bunch of psychology students who probably couldn't care less of about the matter beyond its applicability in their own discipline. Heidegger is a hard theorist to explain in 18 minutes ... this wasn't half-bad (which also means it wasn't half-good). If there's one major problem with this explanation (beside the explication of Dasein's structures) it's that he does a reaaaaaallllly shoddy job of addressing ek-sistenz (i.e. the clearing of Being).
In short, this rudimentary lecture would probably do well in inspiring kids to try and read Heidegger, something I think we'll both agree is not a task for the feint of spirit (see what I did there?).
It only takes a privileged degree and ten years, some hardcore process to understand, they want it back you aren't allowed to keep it or look at it again so they gave me this boring one heidegger Influenced various translations that still don't make true sense of it I made some interesting comments that have a few hints but it becomes a phenomology of a philosophy within the mind itself on reality thats extremely difficult to actually talk about due to alterity like downloading something into your brain... I call them nihalists and they'll reverse any meaning into nonsense there's nothing you can do about it
Too bad you can set him straight with all your wisdom and greatness
@jordanbpeterson thank you for a thoroughly engrossing lecture.
He didn't start this particular lecture with the word "okay!" I am hurt 😂, this is not what I am accustomed to.
This is so brilliant - Peterson is at his best when he is mixing philosophy with psychology. I reckon he could write a brilliant book on this kind of theme - his interpretation of the great philosophers and their implications in psychology.
I would most definitely read it. I think Peterson even has original contributions to make to this line of discourse, and (considering the propensity to nihilism today) it might be his most important work.
I agree about Sartre, heh, but I find Camus much more appealing.
10:46
“Large scale belief systems are not very fast…predicated on MUTUAL AGREEMENT…social interactions within…useful and JUST…splinter movements.”
This reminded me of regular broadcast TV and cable TV. It’s been trending towards, “a la carte.”
Moving away from a focused, cultural gathering, around a “set” of values or common discussion.
I don’t believe it EVER will or SHOULD ever will…because if there is NOTHING a society can gather around, nothing a culture can relate to with one another…
You will have tribal, segregated and unfamiliar CHAOS…at a NATIONWIDE MACRO LEVEL.
JUST a thought. 😌
SCARY, if there is NO BASELINE substance to ASSIMILATE to.
I would love to sit down and bounce ideas off of you, I'm enjoying the little bit that's on RUclips so far.
Thank you for spurring my love for philosophy! Your lectures are astonishing!
damn i always listen to these lectures when i gotta do some boring stuff like cooking and its the best! and at the end of the day lying in my bed and thinking about the stuff and how it fits to my life!! thx gospodin Peterson
Life changing experience.
I wish I was smarter!
So incredibly valuable!
How is this valuable? It is total gibberish. This is supposed to be a lecture on Phenomenology? This is an outstanding example of a failed and rambling lecture.
The last half hour is breathtaking!
Was your flabber gasted?
Ah yes. The gasting of the flabber.
The type of his thinking is very confusing, conclusive . In other words he doesn’t let the thinking do it’s job , always he fills them with his subjective biases world view
It was mentioned, that radical reconfiguration of society is almost always a catastrophe, however it may be the only option for people placed at the bottom of hierarchy, especially if establishment is set to exploit. It may be the only way to move forward and sometimes it works. For instance, French revolution brought human rights, overthrow absolute monarchy and allowed to establish republics. It may be the case, that revolution is inevitable unless the system gradually delegates power and allows climbing hierarchy.
French revolution ended in a catastrophe, it took them a century and a half to get on the right track. The Americans had a much better run of it. Yeah slavery's bad, but I'd take that over large scale bloodshed.
@@muffinman2946 Id say the French got back on track with Napoleon. The american revolution went well, the roman "revolution" (when they killed their kings) went well also
Hi Dr. Peterson! Thanks for your lectures, a real gift. What book would you recommend from Boss?
In Qubec, "when Catholicism fell apart, people, who still needed structured belief systems just turned to nationalism as a structured alternative, and that's part of what accounted for the regidity and utopianism of the Quebec movement towards independence". Any Scots watching? (I say this as a Yes voter)
We want both highs and lows, we our highs the highest and our lows the lowest.
"See you Thursday"
You can very easily tell the difference between 60hz and 144hz. Hell even 100hz and 144hz is a massive difference.
1:15:27 Dr. Peterson explains how he became Dr. Peterson.
"Freud noticed (this is in the aftermath of Nietzsche) that you're not the master of your own psyche. There's many sub 'you's inside of you and they don't all want the same thing.
So the idea that you can generate your own meaning is an insufficiently developed idea, because theres a lot of meaning making generators residing within you. And not only do they not all point in the same direction (which is a huge problem) but they don't even necessarily lay themselves out in some integrated fashion across time. And they dont necessarily operate together in way thats going to enable you to find your place with other people and in society.
So, you know; "make your own meaning". Well; which part of you, you know? You're not a unified thing."
"Dasein" being there or existence. I like it
Da means there and sein is the infinitive which means to be. To be or not to be.
Dasein, yes, means literally “being there.” But refers to the human being. It does not mean existence. Heidegger uses the word Existenz for existence in Sein und Zeit.
@@postdeliberately5641 cool thx for the correction
1:16:00 finding your path
it would be great to have a transcription option for youtube videos.
There is a transcript option nowadays :))
I found Professor Peterson as he was a guest on Joe Roman’s podcast.
Who knew the cohost of the imbecilic manshow could be the gateway
to such great knowledge.
Joe Roman or Joe Greek
Personally I prefer Joe Persian
20:21 A consequence of our neglect of moral principle, neglect of the idea of Truth as a Primary Value, is that our economic system rewards harmful behavior. We don't insist that the market operate honestly. We don't demand that industries account for externalities. (There's no generall fee charged proportional to pollution emitted, resources depleted or habitat destroyed.) This means that harmful practices bring profit. IF we charged appropriate fees, then we'd be able to take random polls and find that environmental impacts of various kinds are being held within limits that most people think are acceptable.
We can make the policy fair by sharing fee proceeds (a measure of the value of natural resources--a gift from God or the product of natural processes) to all people.
pretty gr8
Love it, especially at 1:00:18, and beyond. It's like philosophy porn, where the great money shot comes at the end.
Ohhh Jezuz, I'm squirtttingggg!
Scissor me timbers
I suspect Heidegger was trying to teach fellow dons how to communicate with each other. Most folk, including JP, don't need it. The Sheldrakes and their fellow thinkers will give viewers better leads.
45:00 horror of the domination of every creative landscape
You cannot psychologize Heidegger. He warns throughout his book that you can't do this, he openly attacked all such readings. You can absolutely not confound the ontological and the ontic. Once again, this is intro class material. He hasn't read this book.
@@keithhunt5328 True; and Peterson is a loud apologist of Hitler's "genius" and a horrible -comically overconfident- reader of philosophers. If we are to remain on topic. But OK.
@@razvanrepciuc3284 I know this is late, but if you could elaborate that would be nice.
Appears hungover in this one.
Right? Probably having a bad day or something. He definitely doesn't have his usual energy
Thank you Doctoriye :-)
what about unifying yourself? integrating everything within yourself?
+Montana Hovatter make your point please.
What if family members are dead? What if family members cannot agree on a consensus reality? Nietzsche stated "I have done that," says my memory. "I cannot have done that" -- says my pride, and remains adamant. At last -- memory yields.” Would it not be dangerous to integrate a lie -- in the name of making peace with yourself. Is peace merely an absence of conflict? Or does it have to include engagement? I mean it would be optimal but sometimes some things are just not possible. Is someone doomed not to be whole -- because of someone else's inability to accept the truth?
PTSD doesnt only come from observing oneself commit atrocities, it also can come about from witnessing something that makes you realize "how damn bloody arbitrary the universe is" as Dr. Peterson might say.
I know an ex-squadie who has PTSD. What you see in the army can definitely be traumatic!
Arbitrary is a truly scary word
@elvisfifo Unfortunately it is the truth of our existence. Thank God for everyday that you open your eyes. Although this is a two year old comment, I too learned from the Army that even stateside everything can end in the snap of your fingers.
Dr. Peterson
I don't know how to reach you. I have tried different ways and will keep looking for it. Please teach me how to become more focused on my jobs. I am not industrious at all but I am very talented.
AHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAHAHAH the "da sein" HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHA wie er es ausspricht! herbe der lachkick!
Speaking of dreams I'm going to randomly describe one from my early teens that has just stuck with me. (Feel free to interpret this if you want)
Now before we start let me explain my dream neighborhoods. Whenever I am outside in a dream and can see the surrounding structures it's always a blur of houses or buildings I have seen or been too. I understand that, the dream is filling in the blanks with familiar buildings. The buildings should be along this sidewalk otherwise the world is broken, let's just check the files on buildings and copy/paste. Originally it was houses and the like but more recently businesses and video game/media buildings, so things from movies and such.
Basically any place I actually document as special I could dream of in this neighborhood. Well in this dream it was a collection of houses, my mothers work, and my church (Which is across the street from my mothers business) This neighborhood actual consisted mostly actual houses from the block around my mothers business, just one or two were different.
I don't remember half the dream, only the part that terrified me and the parts before that. For some reason a tiger was sleeping on a swing in front of one of the houses that actually exists next to my mothers work. I did everything I could to sneak past that big bengal tiger. I reached a house that didn't belong there and tried to enter thinking it the house of my mothers current secretary. Surely she would help me. Problem is the concrete porch was missing up close to the door and I fell making a loud noise and waking the tiger.
I turned and ran a distance before it caught me, tackled me, and bit into my stomach. The whole thing woke me up screaming because my blanket bunched around my stomach making it feel like something was actually biting down on my stomach. I threw my blanket off and went running.
This dream disturbs me to this day and I don't know why.
Refer Blake's 'tiger, tiger, burning bright'
Tiger could be a symbol of something that robs you of your inner power, but that you don't confront.
Confront it in your waking, conscious moments. This 'terror striking tiger' is robbing you, but you hv repressed the fact of it. Hence it could be appearing in your dreams.
The tiger is the God Squad which is robbing you of your ability to think for yourself. For example, in the book of Exodus they become the property of Jehovah. You need to be more free spirited instead of clinging on to stale hope that some son who never actually existed is going to "come back again" and "save you." The only mystery of religion is why people still believe in it.
@@Lakshyam9 Blake's The Fly is also relevant.
@@misssarahashplant31 Lol it was a spooky dream. I don't follow the Christian gods anymore. I also don't think all this cringy fedora tier presumptuous pseudo intellectual bullshit is accurate.
Three years ago I was quite overcome with anxiety. These dreams were nothing more than my anxiety manifest. I was finally at the university stage of my education. I was hit very suddenly with the realization that I had no safety net. I had no help. The rest of my life was up to me.
In the time between then and now I've gained control. The mind and body have a way of adapting to their situation in three years. But at the time I was incredibly anxious about life and old dream sequences were plaguing me at night.
It had nothing to do with whatever Psyche 1 Jordan B Peterson tier bullshit you hide under your fedora to make you think you're smarter than everyone around you.
@@jinglesbejankin7322 I find what Dr. Peterson talks about very interesting. I don't see how he is pseudointellectual but anyway, you see him through your own lens.
You're missing 2 points for the perfect notes
I increased the speed to 1.5, and ..it.. still ...sounds ...slow
God I love Jordan Peterson.
This teacher says that Dasein is the "totality of experiencing" in which everyone is "encapsulated". This statement makes no sense to me. Heideggers term Dasein simply refers to humans, in what makes humans human, which is that they relate to their being. "Dasein versteht sich in irgendeiner Weise in seinem Sein" - Dasein comprehends itself in some manner in its being and makes it amenable in the sense of "I am". On top of that reasoning may or may not appear (animal rationale / zoon logon echon). That is a very central element in his philosophy and it doesn't seem adequately grasped in this strange lecture that claims to be about phenomenology while consisting of one hour of anecdotal insights and twenty minutes of phenomenology. And some of his statements are downright outrageous. Marx certainly never argued that the people who gained a status of elite in a system created the system. That's paradoxical. And the proposition of this teacher that music business being dominated by few musicians and one percent of the world population owning more than half of the worlds wealth would be basically the same and sort of an inevitable natural development makes me utterly speechless. BTW the "film footage" of Nietzsche is an animated collage of photographies by Hans Olde.
"And the proposition of this teacher that music business being dominated by few musicians and one percent of the world population owning more than half of the worlds wealth would be basically the same and sort of an inevitable natural development makes me utterly speechless. "
It's called the Pareto distribution. It's not something you can make up.
I wish Dr Peterson would please re-read "The Age of the World Picture", for one. Heidegger was trying to overcome the idea that the human being was a mere collection of sensations and impressions (as subiectum) and was a being-in-the-world.
Are nihilism and totalitarianism dimorphic like gender, where the presence of one in an individual necessitates a shadow of the other?
+Jordan B Peterson Dimorphism is damn near incomprehensible and just tears away my sense of solid ground. Those two modes, totalitarian and nihilist, are differentiated and categorized by observing a persons behavior, based on the idea that behavior implies motive, yet if you were to base your categorization on the idea that motive implies behavior, the categories of what constitutes nihilism and what constitutes the other thing switches. Hitler was a totalitarian because he did x y z. Hitler was a nihilist because he wanted x y z. So he was both, depending on your vantage point?
when I say behavior I really mean outcome. Outcome and motive.
Yep, I definitely looked at a sphinx and went bzzrrrp yesterday.
The analysis of how power relations form is pretty bad and he takes what Marx said out of context, along with implying that Marx explained capitalism as a moral system of entitlement, which he didn't.
I would suggest going through Marx's earlier writings (from his critique of Hegel's theory of the state to the German Ideology).
Antonio Gramsci is worth reading.
8:20 Is not factor in Judaism. We use
shadchan.
These lectures are very interesting and informative. Thanks for posting them for free! I do have one issue, however. I don't agree with the idea that if people are left to define there own moral codes and how to live in the world, or civilization, that they will have to spend an inordinate amount of time doing so. I think you contradict yourself a little here.
If evolutionary processes are the foundation of the shared moral substrate, and these commonalities are what led to archetypes, and archetypal stories, then those defining their own moral code, subjectively let's say, without the guidance of a religious doctrine, would, looking within, still find the same values. Because, as you say, they are encoded genetically. Furthermore, you seem to support my assertion with references to "Crime and Punishment" as well as the effects of war on soldiers. It is precisely because the moral code is embedded in our genetic makeup and, subsequently, or perhaps simultaneously, results in the social order, that people end up damaged by in the ways you describe.
It seems to me as well, that the archetypal stories don't simply exist in religious texts, and I don't believe you have said that either. You frequently refer to Harry Potter, as well as many other modern stories portraying the heroic archetype. It is, to me, evident that religion is not in fact necessary for these stories to remain ever present in the collective conscience and, therefore, relevant. They are not dependent on a religious or spiritual belief because they are part of the genetic structure. The religious texts are the articulation of the a priori moral substrate. They are, perhaps, only more potent due to their status, however unreasonably founded, as literally divinely inspired. Rejecting religion is perilous when the stories are rejected as well, but, in my opinion, would be beneficial for the sake of truth and reason.
It seems entirely possible to have a secular, non-religious society, without confusing people or leaving them lost in the wilderness, so to speak, by explaining our relationship to morality as an articulation of social constraints and expectations as determined and derived by evolutionary processes. I believe this, largely in part, because that is exactly what myself, and many listeners are gleaning from your lectures...and it isn't so terribly difficult.
In any case. You're a busy man and I don't expect a reply, but wanted to write all this nevertheless.
You make an interesting point! I think it is possible to live in a secular society but there will always be people who have a need for religion.
40:47 you’re not the master of your psyche? There’s many sub yous inside you and they don’t all necessarily point in the same direction
45:38 in any domain there’s always a minority that has more than the 50%
52:00 you don’t want too negative not too positive in a relationship
1:03:06 what’s nihilism is doing is twisting certain elements of
Jordan P.
I´m still unsure of what you exactly define by meaning. If we constantly and naturally give meaning to all we live, then what do you understand by something being meaningless?
The lack of purpose ?
Meaning and purpose are inextricably linked.
something that we do not care about
Interesting how in the 2017 lecture he introduces Dasein pretty much right away but in this lecture he waits till 54:00 to introduce Dasein.
I feel that letting Nietzsche 'off the hook', so to speak, for parts of his philosophy that are easily applicable to totalitarian culture is a cherry-picking view of his commentary. You discuss his idea of value-creating, but we shouldn't forget that he said quite clearly that the value-creating was a function of very rare "higher men". He also said that lesser men [which comprise the vast majority of us] didn't just NEED to be dominated by man with the strength and will to dominate, but that they WANTED to be. With that axiom in place, it isn't stretch at all for the rationalization and application of the dark deeds that came not long after.
I think a more effective argument against his idea of value-creating [if you agree that such a thing is possible in the first place] is that most people aren't able or willing to do it - a view that is congruent with his actual work and a more practical real-world counterpoint. I think that - even if one can't create truly new values - that Nietzsche's 'higher men' are capable of adopting a set of values that sometimes will discard parts of the social contract. This can be valuable and positive for an actualized person, but can also be an effective tool and downright dangerous in the hands of extremists.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that Nietzsche is to blame for the rise of totalitarian culture, but pretending that his message was merely warped, or misinterpreted by the 20th century idealouges isn't a fair analysis of the work. He had a lot dangerous ideas; he said so himself.
@@konberner170 Aspects of this critique appear fundamental. I think interpretation of the work and idea of the overman may always be predicated on the degree of inflationary will to power experienced as a compensatory need and force by the reader (as ideology is understood as a response to trauma/a lack of internal balance in one's sense of self conducive to the life affirming and experience of enduring love). There should not to a domination by force evocation, ultimately, but inspiration of others via character development (an exemplary archetype) and acceptance of the limitations of the power game in context of meaning and outcomes (this likely requires metacognitive capacity). The problem is that the relational game is so often imbued with a sense of lack and need for re-empowerment/influence amongst a certain array of personalities (the narcissist in particular) in order to achieve (an outward orientation). Of course, interpretations are limited by one's psychointegrative progress - a process that so many struggle to formulate within their concept of identity and meaning. Many works, biblical and otherwise, can be applied towards the destructive enterprises as utilized by the unconscious shadow complex and manifested socially through the orientation of the rigid limbic functions that have a primary need towards control. An ethically defined concept of the overman as conscious and strong with regard to the development of self-restraint and adherence to life-affirming principles and defining human nature by its potential for compassion may be required to proliferate with more emphasis considering the above.
29:00 stress damage from hormones implied
Just one insignificant correction: Nietzsche was not captured on video as such was an invention of the 1950s. Neitzsche was captured on film.
I've seem him on film. He composed some nice music as well.
1:12:56
Argh! You just crushed my ubermenchian dreams!
But is your work not it's own revaluation of values? You have spent your life (so far) doing so, but perhaps creation of new values and convincing others to hold them to be sacred is a project that can progressed toward, passed down and eventually completed and protected? This of course would include of a method of adapting the value system to changes in the environment. I don't see what other choice we have.
Was this in UTM??
This is a really awful video. Especially starting at 15:03.
Starting to sound like Course in Miracles?
Tinder 😂
all that you should know about communism is that it is worst then nazi
25:00 So we shouldn’t do away with evil so long as we’re satiated and numb? Don’t rock the boat? The separatists aren’t saying “we just FEEL it would be better”. They have concrete reasons why it would be better, and those are well-founded in the history of economics and culture prior to State intervention AND the evils of the current system. Canada has only gotten worse since this video was recorded, too. That’s one of the few times I’ve heard JBP actually make a straw man argument to ‘shut down’ someone he disagreed with. But he still believes in politics so...well using his logic I could say it’s not worth having a discussion with someone like that (even though I think it IS worth it). Not that separatists are anarchists, but if you think an anarchist is anything close to a utopian I suggest questioning the utopian belief that some benevolent government that can point a gun at whomever they choose will magically restore order, rather than allowing people to voluntarily choose who they want to interact with. Anarchy is not Utopianism. Belief in politics is, and JBP sounded like far more of a utopian here than that ‘separatist’ he was talking to.
nitsch live on video 1899?
Who would win in a fist fight? Freud or Jung? (Both in their prime).
Jung, no contest
@@johnsteed5754 Freud wouldn't go down without a fight.
All Jung needs to do to Freud is insult his mother. Man will start sobbing after that.
I blame all the evils of the world on contraception (contraceptive mentality). Yup. Let that marinate for a while.
👍
That's not what Sartre meant by "Hell is other people"! That's also not what Marx meant by "religion is the opiate of the masses"! Marx didn't write that religion "laid out so that a small elite could control the population." This guy is a professor at one of the most respected universities in the world. Wow. It's kind of amazing that a professor can get away with cherry picking quotes, giving them the interpretation that accords with his ideology.
Where is the rigor?
I agree. I think he's a great teacher BUT he is really biased against anything he considers Marxist. It seems he conflates the tragedy that was the Soviet Union with Marx's thought. I don't get the impression he has seriously studied Marx. Too bad. It really gets annoying sometimes. I don't think there exists a better critic of capitalism than Marx's.
That is what Marx meant. And it's not just the soviet union, Peterson talked about China as well.
Marx wasn't just a critic of capitalism he believed in an overthrow of it by throwing off 'oppressors'.
Marx was very short sighted, as intelligent as he was, to not realize that it wasn't just the aristocrats that were being overthrown. And as a matter of fact could not account for a rising new class which grew due to the retention of capital. Nevertheless, Marxist theory, which is rooted in the revolution of anyone ho has less than one who has more, is a deeply frightening thought. Deconstructed Marxist theory is horrifying not empowering.
If you think there is something in Marx's critique of capitalism that leads to the labour camps in the Soviet Union then, like Peterson, you clearly haven't studied Marx's work, and you're revealing that you don't know what you're talking about.
Ok Rob, I'm familiar with your view of the world and I understand why you think I am in favor of gulags and dictatorships. But you should know that just because I'm not in favor of capitalism as a mode of life, does not in any way lead me to being a fan of Soviet-style dictatorship. In fact, it's the opposite. I am opposed to any form of human domination that is unjustified. I have read a ton of Marx's writings, with a handful of very critical and intelligent people, and I can tell you that there is no better critique of capitalism as a mode of production. That's my conclusion. At first I wanted to ask you how Marx's critique of capitalism leads to a dictatorship of the proletariat. I wanted to say that I know you're not going to be able to do so because there is no necessary connection at all. But I don't want to be rude anymore. All I can say is that if you want to learn to think for yourself, find someone to guide you through Marx's Capital Volume I (to start, David Harvey has a whole course on it on youtube).
There are many great thinkers in the 20th century who held on to Marx's critique of capitalism while simultaneously ridiculing what was happening in the Soviet Union and other dictatorships that claimed to be for the people. The same happens under capitalism. Both capitalism and bureaucratic communism are forms of life that are characterized by domination in the sphere where we produce our daily lives. Some people reap the benefits while others do all the work. I'm simply in favor of imagining a much more radically democratic way in which we can live, with real education that's critical of dogma. It doesn't mean we do away with dogma, it means we question it.
Have a nice one, man. Take care.
This is not a lecture, just a waste of time. :(
Never have i seen a lecture on heidegger start with discussions around birth control. I am probably not watching the rest of this video...
😂
This existential nonsense turned me towards the Unabomber.
In other words you turned yourself towards the Unabomber.
@@misssarahashplant31 I turned myself towards anthropology, then towards Daniel Quinn's Ishmael which was a revelation to me like no other. Yet the daily existential grind forces you to find workable answers within this civilization, then one day out of no where I watched a video about The Unabomber.
@@naushadahmed8090 Sounds interesting!
8:00 tinder produced a spike in stds
Wow, it gets worse. He explains Heidegger (whom he says is avoiding the "subject-object game") using the language of Western metaphysics! In other words, he explains Heidegger falsely. He's so confused. I'm sure his students must be, too. This is unbelievable to me. How can this guy be teaching such falsities to undergraduates!
The first philosophy professor who taught me Heidegger, taught it well using Heidegger's own language, comparing it along the way to the language of Western metaphysics. It made sense. At least in this lecture, this guy did a poor job of explaining what Heidegger was on about.
Your criticism equates falsity of conclusion with subjective disapproval of means to arrive at a correct conclusion. That notwithstanding your criticism is - in this case - factually inaccurate. seop.illc.uva.nl/entries/heidegger/#BeiTim
It also wouldn't hurt if you dialed down the bravado, it makes your comments an unnecessarily exhausting read.
Your thoughts are jumbled and expressed in a grammatically incorrect way.
I must admit I find people like you very irritating. I couldn't care less if you want to pretend like you read Heidegger and know whether or not he was metaphysical in his early works. Read the stuff I referenced, or don't. Either way, I shan't indulge your attempt at saving face any further, so fare thee well.
This is a real refreshing change of pace from your run of the mill internet duel. "Your thoughts are jumbled and grammatically incorrect!" "I shan't indulge your attempt at saving face any further!" If someone could slap the other with a glove, that'd be great.
This guy, an academic, has a 1950s popular understanding of Marx: Base is the cause of superstructure. But Marx had a much more complicated "dialectical" understanding of the relationship between ideas and practices. Read and think before you spew your ideas, professor!
I tried to read and think about your comments, but your ego got in the way.
My comment wasn't meant for people like you, anyway. So it's all good.
But he's not analyzing Marx in this video. Marx was no dummy and no one as far as I can see has ever claimed that. The issue is that MARXISM has caused alot more harm than good in this world. Watch more of his lectures, he's terrific.
S Power He's very well read in my opinion. Try and watch some of his other lectures. I'm sure you'll turn around. :-D
r/i'mverysmart